No, I am not being facetious in my subject. You do make some great points, many of which I agree with. I am sorry that my poor choice of words in the previous post led to a view of me that frankly, is false, and furthermore, is unworthy of a PPC Boarder.
I know that the Board is not a forum for political debate, nor do I want it to become so. I only hope that when issues such as these come up, that all sides are able to express their opinions, popular or no. Obviously, we all agree that we need to be mature about the way we express ourselves on such touchy subjects, and, given the responses, I admit again that the way I expressed myself was amiss.
That said, since you did respond to what I said, please allow me to reply, especially since I have given some thought to it. Quotes are in italics. Where you italicized in the original, I’ve underlined.
In addition, my "diversity" as an abstract value was taking into account that we need more than just romances in the media: we need committed and supportive friendships, we need strong families, we need intensely personal stories about people who don't need any love interests to make them want to overcome their problems, and we need stories where people are judged by their actions first and any category they happen to fall into second. I mean, personally, I like stories about saving the world. I'd love if the media didn't automatically assume that any character who was going to save the world has to be a straight white male.
And I honestly and vociferously agree with every single sentence in that paragraph! In fact, I alluded in part to that same thing in my first post. (“[T]he media seem to be quick to portray any close relationship as either being romantic/sexual, or else heading in that direction.”) We need more than just "guy meets girl and gets it on"!
I did not think to highlight that in the other post because, first, I thought I had adequately addressed it, and second, because I was laser-focused on the point of disagreement. Unfortunately, it seems that things have been misconstrued by others (including a certain vitriolic post that I will not legitimize with a link)—thankfully, not including you. Again, I am not against having more diverse casts and leading roles. Recall that I myself am not of the WASP demographic, as I am Haitian. If anyone ought to know what being misunderstood and discriminated against is like, I should. That said, off to that narrow point of disagreement:
[I]f you meant what I think you mean and you're making a case that we shouldn't have, say, 50% of our media romances be homosexual and 50% be heterosexual...
Which is exactly what I was saying
my question is why? The characters involved will, presumably, be fictional personages who are of age and fully capable of making their own choices, and the viewers are all human beings who are completely capable of deciding whether or not they approve, either in general or on a case-by-case basis.
Of course, people are free moral agents. However, you actually make my point for me, not once, but twice:
[T]he media is influential.
. . .
[O]ur society relies more and more on the media to form it's (should be “its”) opinions.
And that, fellow Boarder, is the crux of the matter. It is exactly because the media is so influential that I am so leery. Here is the distinction that I should have made (and which, I admit, is slightly different than what I stated before):
* on the one hand, the fact that a person is not a straight WASP male makes no difference in regards to what contributions he or she can make to society. Quoting you: As you said, it's very important for people to learn empathy via the media, that people who are different races, religions, and sexualities than them are people—[and] it is extremely important for them to also learn that they're equally as important as the media's default straight white male. . . . [W]hen they are main characters, their jobs, friendships, romances, religions, and accomplishments need to be given as much attention as the creators would have given friendship, romance, religion, jobs, and accomplishments if the main character had been the default straight white male.
HOWEVER,
* on the other hand, people must not be coerced into believing that those, like me, who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle are either ignorant, behind the times, or are compelled by some homophobic animus. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I fear lest the culture forbids one side from being heard because people have been conditioned to believe, a priori, that that side is not worthy of being heard. It is one thing for people to make a reasoned decision, supported by emotion, that a view is reprehensible. It is another thing for people to believe that a view is reprehensible “just because.”
